The major media may be busy trying to find a runaway bride or drooling over lurid details of the trial of a former pop music star, but Congressman John Conyers is not about to let these vital non-issues detract attention from the most serious story of the day. It figures!!

Rep. Conyers has written an open letter to president bush asking some very pointed questions, as detailed in this piece from our friends at The Raw Story !! Conyers doesn't mess around with small-talk, either. The letter begins:

Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.

The remainder of the letter follows...

The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed:

* Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.

* British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."

* A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.

* A British official "reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:

1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?

2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.

Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Congressman John Conyers

This letter --- and the memo to which it refers --- have been hot topics recently on other threads, which is great but surely does not do the story justice! Thanks to Peg C. [who posted the link to Raw Story piece] and to Savanster and Bushw@cker and all the other posters who have been trying to alert me to this big story. I should have posted something many hours ago. And I would have too, if I had been awake! Oh well, better late than never.

Hurray for Mr. Conyers! All his letter writing will contribute to the historical record of the arrogant, incompentent, dishonest, greedy, murdering Bush administration. That will be the Bush legacy: disaster for America, and destruction for the rest of the world. May God put an early end to the Bush scourge on this earth!

Thanks for covering this. This story is actually huge, but the MSM and the blogosphere seem to be missing it. Your readers can learn more at Daily Kos, and at Congressman Conyers' blog --- http://www.conyersblog.us.

The forged memo story was too little too late... Just the guilty cats covering up shit. Blair had already done two interviews since the Sunday Times Online, super-secret Downing Street memo was published. The truth stands.

I received a reply from Carol Towornicky today. Her email (my name and story links redacted) is pasted below:

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) has something I feel is of interest to
all Americans. At Mr. Conyers Blog entry
entitled: "Creating"
Justifications To Go To War, is a link to his DailyKos post: Creating
Reasons to Go to War,
wherein is a letter he has sent to President Bush. Mr Conyers is referring
to The Secret
Downing
Street Memo in Sunday's Times Online in Britain. On the internet, Raw Story
has written this article as well: Rep. calls for
deeper inquiry into
secret Iraq attack plan. There may be additional info out there as well.

I would love to see these developments discussed in public, as the
people have a very important right to know about this. Thank you for your
hard work!

JC's letter to Bu$h refers to this 23 July 2002 memo
which no one is suggesting is a fake; on the contrary this memo's authenticity is confirmed by this statement: Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." (from JC's letter to "little shrub")

......whereas the story "Forged Iraq 'memo to Blair' exposed" refers to an "allegedly" fake memo sent
by Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith to Tony B-Liar on March 7, 2003.

KIRA, I know you knew the difference between the two memo's, but I just thought someone skimming through the posts may confuse the memo's!
I share your obvious skepticism regarding the "fake" tag on the Goldsmith memo!

=======================
P.S. My Hovercraft is full of eels!
=======================

The memo that Conyers refers to is definitely legitamate, no doubt about it. Blair has been interviewed since the memo broke over the weekend. Blair would obviously denounce it immediately if he felt it was fake or innaccurate, because, to state the obvious, the memo damages Blair very close to the election.

But not even a wisper of this in the US MSM. This proves beyond any doubt that the corporate media protects Bush.

What the fuck? I called my rep, both senators, and the white house to give them a piece of my mind. I hope all of you do the same.

What the hell happened to the "rule of law" ? It was really really damn important when Clinton lied about sex. But lying about WAR? There's no fucking comparison.

As I understand it, the Brits said this was "nothing new" because Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher signed a private agreement that England would go to war whenever the United States needed them to, and Tony Blair assumed it was still in force. The Cold War was extant, and trouble brewed in Lebanon and Grenada.

Of course we weren't told about it. It's "something new" to us. Especially since the Cold War is over.

I think John Conyers is going for broke, like a MLK of 2005, knowing that nothing in life is worth anything without human rights, decency, honesty, integrity and the rule of humane law. I hope from the bottom of my heart that he has adequate protection - but I'm betting he'd do his thing without any, just because it's the right thing to do.

Yes KIRA, I'm getting a little obscure, but it's from the Blackmail Quiz segment, where the old lady (Terry Jones) asks for "a blow on the head, just there, where it hurts" and he comes back with an offer of "a knee in the temple and a dagger up the cl----is" !

I spoke to some bitch at the WH comment line. This was my second call in 2 days. I am going to call each and every day, day after day, until the President acknowledges his proven War Lies. Heck, maybe I'll call twice a day.

The lady on the line today quipped "so your source is the internet?"

And I responed, "No, the information is CIRCULATING in the internet. The source is the memo leaked in the UK, and it is of undisputed authenticity, according to interviews with Tony Blair since the memo leaked. The memo is undenyable proof that Bush LIED about the War. I want the President on prime time television YESTERDAY either explaining his lies, making up new lies to cover the lies, or a resignation!!! This information broke Saturday, was reported in British papers on Sunday, and circulating on the internet like wildfire on Monday. How many days will it take for the President to directly respond to this?"

Hey Bejammin075, twice daily sounds good,
you'll be on a firstname basis with the entire WH call centre in no time! hehe
What about burying the WH with emails......nah,
the bastards don't actually read those emails!

KIRA, Shaw's article, if factually based is certainly a can of worms as it would represent a monumental conspiracy to manage dissent!

===============================
Hello It's just after 8:00 and time for the penguin on top of your television set to explode.

[Penguin explodes]

'Ow did'e know that was going to happen?
man: it was an inspired guess.
===============================

At the WH website, there is this "Ask the WH" thingy, where from time to time various WH staff can have questions submitted to them, and they possibly might respond. So at 2 pm today, one of the people is Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State (European Affairs).

I've submitted the following question (more like a comment, since they won't touch it..)

To Daniel Fried:

Some news broke in Europe on Sunday 5/1/05, in the UK specifically. It was reported in the Sunday Times:

Was leaked about Tony Blair's and Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq. The memo is damaging to Bush and Blair, but the memo is definitely authentic and not a fake. This is known because Blair has since been interviewed, Blair acknowledges the memo (although he claims people are taking the memo information out of context):

The memo is about a July 23, 2002 meeting with Blair and his top people. Among the noteable things that this memo covers, it notes that:

War with Iraq was already decided upon:
"Military action was now seen as inevitable"

Intelligence was being cherry picked to justify the war:
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

There was no planning for the occupation:
"There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

The timing of the war would ideally maximize political gain for the President:
"No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections."

Again, war with Iraq was a certainty:
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided."

Even though Iraq was NOT a high priority threat to our national security:
"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Would you be willing to discuss the ramifications that this verifiably true and accurate information has with our European allies? Specifically, how is Europe reacting to the proof that Bush and Blair lied, repeatedly, to the American people and to the world about nearly everything they said in public with regards to the planning and rationale for invading Iraq? Does President Bush fit the definition of the International Criminal Court's definition of a War Criminal? And if so, is that the reason that Bush dislikes the ICC? Do you know if the President has any plans to address citizens of the United States about his lies that mislead us into war in Iraq?

Bejammin - Excellent. Were they surprised? How could they be, John Conyers has already sent THE LETTER!! Maybe they're just surprised that anybody else has noticed!! YeeHaw!
==============================================
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise....
==============================================

P.S. ShadowTwinChaos --- in one of your earlier posts I noticed you are really a "Twins" and so am I. We are waiting for Summer's warm breath of renewal and vigor. Haha! I like the Spanish Inquisition theme!

Confess Bejammin - are you Greg Palast? If not - wow - what a compliment!!

BUSHW@CKER #35
==============================================
Poke her with the Soft Cushions! She thinks she is strong because she can survive the Soft Cushions!! Confess Woman!! Confess! Confess! Confess!
==============================================

Check out DKos this morning. A good chunck of the recommended diaries are no-holds-barred impeachment diaries. How long before Bush has approval in the sub-40's or disapproval at 60+ ??

This is not going to be a good summer for Bush. At the Antisocial Insecurity press conference last thursday, didn't the President look like shit? And he totally fucked up his softball questions. During the Q & A, I thought, no wonder they never picked up on Gannon/Guckert. No one asked the painfully obvious question that would have been asked in a free press "Mr. President, if we're winning the war on terror, how come the anual terror report that Condi has tried to supress has triple the significant terror events of last year's high numbers?"

Oh well.

The President is finished. His career will not survive the Blair memo leak. All of us are going to make sure of that.

I hope you're right, Bejammino. But Blair's opposition is fragmented, which gives him a good chance of winning a third term. If he does, the Bush administration will take it as approval for the Iraq invasion, given the fact that the private agreement was made public before the election.

That's the danger here. The good news, I think, is that there might be a real impeachment case here. If Clinton could be impeached for lying about Monica, Bush might be vulnerable on a matter of much greater importance. He wasn't under oath, of course, which raises the bar for his accusers.

RLM#39,
If I understand things correctly, in the UK you vote for the party, not the individual. So people like Labour, but don't like Blair. They'll vote for Labour, and hope that the Labour party picks a new PM. I could be wrong.

I think you could make a reasonable arguement, that if the President is talking to the public to get support for an optional war, that people should be able to take the President's word, even though he is technically not under oath. When the President talks on matters of such importance, it is expected that the President treat the matter as if he is under oath.

Peg #24,
Thank you, I just read your 'real deal' link.
And though I might argue with the excellent Mr. Rivers Pitt on one point---that here at the bradblog, at least, when disagreements erupt, I don't see us "beating the crap out of each other", thankfully!---I do want to post the last bit of his essay for you, my awesome brothers and sisters:

"That which unites the Left is far, far greater than that which divides them. Yes, there are seemingly insurmountable obstacles standing in the way. Yes, frustration and despair are rampant. Yet when the righteousness, passion and strength of the Left are combined, they can stand up next to a mountain and chop it down with the edge of their hand.
Remember that."
Thank you, sir, for reminding us of that.

"A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity."

Good points. In a court case it is perjury only if a person intentionally lies under oath. That is why Clinton was criticized.

However, in the court of public opinion officials have a duty to perform as if they are under oath. The whole "deniability" aspect of covert and PR machinations is an acknowledgement of that reality.

For a president to lie about the reasoning for a war, both to congress and to the public, is certain to be considered a political crime in a democracy.

It turns democracy into demockracy because it steals by deception the will of the congress and the will of the people.

So even tho President Bush could not be prosecuted for perjury in a court, he could be impeached by the congress if there were enough votes, and has now been scorned by public opinion in the popularity polls.

Dredd #46
That's great news!
This thread is starting to get burried, I hope we get a new main post along these lines to keep the discussion going. I really think Bush is going to be toast because of this, one way or another. It's not going to be easy, but I think the proof is there. If all of us push this we can make it happen.

"Most disturbing, one militia in particular—the “Special Police Commandos”—is being used extensively and has been singled out by a U.S. general for conducting death squad strikes known as the “Salvador option.” The Police Commandos also appear to be a reconstituted Hussein security force operating under the same revived government body, the General Security Directorate, that was formerly tasked with suppressing internal dissent."

The Constitutional requirement for impeachment remains "high crimes and misdemeanors..." As much as I detest Bush, I don't see anything in the public record to warrant conviction on that charge.

He deceived Blair, no question. That's nasty and cruel, but the Reagan-Thatcher secret agreement covers his ass there (plus deception alone isn't a high crime or misdemeanor). He invaded Iraq on false pretenses, but Congress bought into it and is still buying into it...witness Howard Dean's recent support for our ongoing efforts there. His administration has bought favorable journalism, which is sleazy as hell but not indictable. Jeff Gannon is even sleazier, but not impeachable.

Really, two stolen elections are the best case for impeachment. Conyers' 102-page report should be the starting point. What must be shown is 1) that deliberate fraud occurred and 2) THAT BUSH KNEW ABOUT IT BEFOREHAND (otherwise only the people who committed the fraud are impeachable and/or indictable). If deliberate fraud can be proven, it wouldn't be necessary to show that the election outcome would have been different (although it surely would have been), because fraud itself is a high crime, regardless of the consequences.

But 1) is hard to prove and 2) is well nigh impossible to prove. The best chance, I think, is a Deep Throat with insider connections who will spill the beans to a Woodward or Bernstein. That could force revelations that, while not necessarily proving high crimes and misdemeanors, would yet be so embarrassing that Bush couldn't govern...that's why Nixon resigned, after all.